Moss v Donohoe [1915] HCA 61

Moss v Donohoe [1915] HCA 61

A majority held that the Magistrate could find that the letter was an order intended to be executed by the company in Germany, constituting an attempt to trade with the enemy under the Proclamation and the Trading with the Enemy Acts 1914, punishable summarily. Griffith C.J. dissented, holding there was no sufficient proof of intention to obtain goods from Germany and the statutes should not apply retrospectively to attempts before the Act passed.

Parties
Appellant: Laurence Edward Moss; Respondent: John Thomas Tamplin Donohoe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Summary Conviction / High Court on Appeal From a Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (by majority, Griffith C.J. dissenting).
Legal Topics
Trading With the Enemy, Attempts at Criminal Acts, Retrospective Effect of Statutes
Criminal Law Wartime Legislation Trading With the Enemy Attempts at Criminal Acts Retrospective Effect of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laurence Edward Moss

Appellant

John Thomas Tamplin Donohoe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Summary Conviction / High Court on Appeal From a Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sending a letter ordering goods from a company with a branch in enemy territory constitutes an attempt to trade with the enemy under the Trading with the Enemy Acts 1914.
  2. 2 Whether such attempt is punishable summarily under the relevant statutes, particularly when the alleged attempt occurred before the relevant Act was passed.
  3. 3 Whether statutes can be construed with retrospective effect to penalise attempts made before their enactment.

Ratio Decidendi

A majority held that the Magistrate could find that the letter was an order intended to be executed by the company in Germany, constituting an attempt to trade with the enemy under the Proclamation and the Trading with the Enemy Acts 1914, punishable summarily. Griffith C.J. dissented, holding there was no sufficient proof of intention to obtain goods from Germany and the statutes should not apply retrospectively to attempts before the Act passed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (by majority, Griffith C.J. dissenting).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.